macrumors 603

It depends really. I had the same sort of situation, however due to the fact I could upgrade my display in the future as I wished, I went with the mini. The Minis are very expensive for what you get compared to the new C2D iMac... But it depends what you want to do in the future. It's so small and funky as well, whereas I'm not to fond of the 'chin' on the iMac... Personal thing tho

macrumors 603

Depends what you want to do, if your not a gamer and have no need for a video card and have no need for expansion its perfect. Mac OSX cant be beat in my view. Hardware wise Mini is overpriced, but for style small size and ease of use there is nothing that touches it. Now if you enjoy those games or need those slots then stay tuned for my mini review of a dell e521.

macrumors 68040

It'd be nice if there was something in the mini's spec that made them a little more attractive in the current Apple lineup, but I still think they're worth it. You're paying for the form factor and I personally think the mini is the most desirable computer form factor on the planet. You just want to... *touch it*.

I'd love to see the price come down some more so a lot of people can try a Mac who are currently priced out of the game, but there you go

macrumors G5

A friend was considering getting a mini as a small Desktop computer and had a display/KB/Mouse.

A respectable config..1.83/2GB/160GB comes to around £756 with HE discount but i just felt it was a little too much for what you were getting and an iMac would be a better bargain.

Is that a fair analysis or im just hallucinating?

Click to expand...

The MacMini is squeezed into the tiniest possible space, and you pay a price for that unless you go for the absolute minimum. Yes, the iMacs are an absolute bargain. And if you were looking at the 1.83 GHz, have a look at refurbished iMacs at the Apple Store. You can get the old 20" model for under £800, and a new 17" for £699.

macrumors G3

The Minis are really only worthy it if you already have a keyboard, mouse, LCD, and set of speakers that you want to use.

Click to expand...

nah, not even then. Compare to the core 2 duo iMac. If you configure the mini so that it has equal HD and RAM to the 17" iMac, it's $125 cheaper. In saving that $125, you lose:
.17 Ghz
Core 2 duo
17" monitor
keyboard and mouse
dedicated graphics

The mini is just a bad deal, no matter how you figure it. Even if you have a KB/mouse/screen the iMac is STILL a better deal. Apple really should address this, either by giving the mini competitive specs or, preferably, dropping the price significantly.

macrumors 603

The mini is just a bad deal, no matter how you figure it. Even if you have a KB/mouse/screen the iMac is STILL a better deal. Apple really should address this, either by giving the mini competitive specs or, preferably, dropping the price significantly.

Click to expand...

That may be true for you, but I think you're missing the point. The Mini isn't supposed to have high specs. Its supposed to be low specs. iMacs may be better priced with the same specs, but If you want the specs of an iMac, why are you buying a Mini?

I think a lot of people think the Mini is a bad deal, becasue they're looking for iMac specs at a Mini price, and the Mini wasn't meant for that.

macrumors 603

nah, not even then. Compare to the core 2 duo iMac. If you configure the mini so that it has equal HD and RAM to the 17" iMac, it's $125 cheaper. In saving that $125, you lose:
.17 Ghz
Core 2 duo
17" monitor
keyboard and mouse
dedicated graphics

The mini is just a bad deal, no matter how you figure it. Even if you have a KB/mouse/screen the iMac is STILL a better deal. Apple really should address this, either by giving the mini competitive specs or, preferably, dropping the price significantly.

Click to expand...

No, it's a bad deal to you. And that's fine. But maybe you should look around, you aren't alone on the planet.

Don't need any of that list. The Mini is the only computer that fits into my needs, so comparing it to an iMac is pointless. Mine is plugged into my home theater, my TV is the screen and I have wireless keyboard/mouse needs. The screen I especially don't want attached. There are plenty of people who don't need all that stuff. Dedicated graphics, geez....get a life people. That's the most common complaint around here, yet they are only needed for high-end video applications and games. (and if you are considering a Mini for those uses, you have other problems) I'll bet 80% of the people whining about integrated graphics never even approach maxing out the Mini's graphics capabilities with what they do, they just think they need better.

Sure, it would be nice to have the Mini be cheaper, that's a short conversation. But it was mentioned above, it costs to fit all that stuff into a small package. And there's only about 2 computers on the planet that fit into my needs, and only one has OSX.

macrumors 603

I has two choices, a 24" iMac and a Mac Mini. I wanted the 24 but couldn't get it ordered with the discount I was going to get, not to mention I knew I would have to pay another $200 for Leopard and iLife '07 next year. So my solution was to wait on the 24 and get a Mini till then that I woud sell to my dad for his TV or on eBay if he decides he doesn't want it.

Got a 1.66 Rev. A Core Duo Superdrive refurb for $649 + a Canon Printer and a $100 rebate, add a Bluetooth Keyboard (already had mouse) and 2GB RAM from OWC and I am all set.

Now the RAM is arriving today and I have to say with only the stock 512 in there, that Mini is still a sweet little machine and zippier than I expected.

For me there would have been no point in getting a 17" iMac in the interim. I already have a 19" LaCie Electron Blue and I am not downsizing my screen.

macrumors 68000

nah, not even then. Compare to the core 2 duo iMac. If you configure the mini so that it has equal HD and RAM to the 17" iMac, it's $125 cheaper. In saving that $125, you lose:
.17 Ghz
Core 2 duo
17" monitor
keyboard and mouse
dedicated graphics

Click to expand...

Don't forget you also get Speakers, built in iSight Camera with the iMac.

The 2GHz Core 2 iMac is only £80 more than the 1.8 ghz Mac Mini with 1GB RAM and 160GB hard drive in the UK.

macrumors demi-god

Don't forget you also get Speakers, built in iSight Camera with the iMac.

The 2GHz Core 2 iMac is only £80 more than the 1.8 ghz Mac Mini with 1GB RAM and 160GB hard drive in the UK.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that does kind of put it in perspective. Although personally I wouldn't get the 160GB hard drive option on a mini. If I were looking for a mac in the price range of a well specced mini + external display of my choice I think I'd pony up the extra cash for a 2Ghz Core 2 iMac and *still* get a separate display. Unless space was an issue.
I think the Minis could be updated at the same time as the MacBooks to Core 2 Duo and improved Intel graphics which will hopefully make them a bit more reasonable in pricing.

macrumors 65816

I use my G4 1.25 Ghz Mini more than any of my other 3 computers. It cost $499 at the time compared to the $599 base price of the Intel Mini's, and I didn't bother to get the wireless/bluetooth upgrade since I planned on using it with an existing USB keyboard and mouse. All I wanted was a small simple computer for surfing the 'net and to handle my iTunes purchases with, and it fits that role perfectly. The Mini is small enough to fit beneath my LCD monitor and handles: web browsers, iTunes, iPhoto, and DVD playback with ease.

I do think the $599 base price for the Intel Mini's is $100 too much, though. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a low-cost system to get people to dip their toes in the Mac world, when the cheapest iMac is only $400 more. When you consider the value of having a display, keyboard, and mouse out of the box, it doesn't make the difference in price seem all that much.

macrumors 601

Nope, they're not worth it at all... and I'm saying that as a (G4) mini owner and a potential Intel mini buyer. The low end is priced well, and is pretty decent power wise but has no SD option. The high end machine is nice, but priced to high.

The last revision high end in the refurb store (1.66 CD, 512mb, 80gb, SD) for $649 is a pretty good price, though. I'm debating between one of those and waiting till either a) the next revision of mini (hoping for C2D, x3000, and 1gb RAM) or at least till iLife 07 and Leopard are out so I can get those "free".

macrumors 68000

personal preference i guess. for the 'do it yourself' crowd, the core solo refurb (or ebay) and a retail core 2 duo processor is a great way to go. not for everyone i agree, but my mini with the 2ghz C2D is faster than my 2ghz CD imac on everything except games, and it cost me around $800 to build/upgrade. since i already had a the monitor/keyboard/mouse/speakers, it was a good value for me. runs 24 x 7, is silent (i can't tell it's on), and takes up less space than an external drive. very sweet indeed.

macrumors 6502

I really like what the mini has built in and the tiny form factor. But I too have felt that ever since they switched it to Intel processors and upped the price points it was no longer a good deal. My family has the 1.42GHz mini for $599 and I think that was a great deal. If they were to bring back the $499 and $599 (or $699) price points then that would be fantastic.

macrumors G3

No, it's a bad deal to you. And that's fine. But maybe you should look around, you aren't alone on the planet.

Click to expand...

Is there a reason you had to be rude about disagreeing with a perfectly valid hardware comparison?

Quote

That may be true for you, but I think you're missing the point. The Mini isn't supposed to have high specs. Its supposed to be low specs. iMacs may be better priced with the same specs, but If you want the specs of an iMac, why are you buying a Mini?

I think a lot of people think the Mini is a bad deal, becasue they're looking for iMac specs at a Mini price, and the Mini wasn't meant for that.

Click to expand...

Well, the RAM upgrade is mandatory IMO. An intel mac with integrated graphics will beachball you to death with 512 RAM - I speak from experience. So you're looking at $875 before tax. That's not expensive, but it's not cheap, either. Yet it is, as you said, low-end. Mid-range price for low-end specs is a bad deal as far as I'm concerned. No iMac comparison needed.

I think these would be a good value, and compare well to the iMacs in terms of price to performance. Keep the lower clocked CD (not C2D) chips to control prices, bump the RAM on higher end models (makes them better buys in store with no CTO), use the new integrated GPU which shouldn't add any/much cost but will add some performance and therefor value. Strip out features on the low end JUST to get the cheapest Mac ever. Put something between the high and low end too, the $200 spread between them now is just a bit much, especially when the low end starts at $600.

I'm still holding out that Apple will put the 17" WS LCD from the iMac into a iPod styled case, take out the FW/USB hub and ideally add an iPod dock - $249. I'd like to see some bundling from Apple as well. Put a keyboard, mouse, 17" LCD in a single box for $279 and offer it in stores. Give away a shuffle if you buy a mini+LCD/keyb/mouse in the same purchase. That's a full system, with iPod, for <$700-1000, which makes it compete with the iMac, but not so much that you wouldn't look at the iMac for the 'real' GPU, faster HDD, bigger screens, faster C2D CPU.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.